Good opportunity for Obama to stiff-arm the Saudis, begin a new, more distant relationship with the nation that provided 15 of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers and continues to fund jihadist movements all over the world.

Saudi is right there with Israel in trying to instigate an American attack on Iran, too. They are nothing but a pain in the ass for the United States.

On the face of it, it seems absurd that any country could be ruled as an absolute monarchy in 2015. Or that it would allow public executions; canings; and not allow women to drive. And that doesn't begin to address the covert funding some Saudis provide to worldwide Islamic extremism.

On the other, it has been a rare example of stability in the region. It has been at peace with Israel since the Camp David accords; and has acted to keep the price of oil in range that doesn't bankrupt its European and US customers.

The best we can hope for is a gradual easing of some of the more repressive strictures of the regime. Its worth noting that the new King, like his half brother and the four previous Saudi Kings, was a son of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud - the founder (with the help of the British and US Governments) of the modern state of Saudi Arabia. It strikes me as unlikely that much in the way of serious reform is going to come at the hands of men in their 80s - so we may need to wait until a younger generation comes to power to see any serious change. Salman is almost 80; and has at least one stroke. (Some analysts believe he may be suffering from dementia or Alzheimers.) So don't be terribly surprised if King Salman's reign is neither long or fruitful.

But I'm certain the entire Bush Clan (Jeb too), as well as Obama, and also the surviving Bin Laden Clan, will all fly together on the same jet so they can all attend the funeral.

And after funeral, POTUS has to make sure he kisses the ring finger of the new monarch.

IMHO . USA is grossly hypocritical for always targeting Iran, but giving Saudi Arabia a pass. Yes, Iran is also another warmongering backwards Muslim nation. But funny thing is, Iran actually has better civil rights than Saudi Arabia monarchy. In Iran, you can be a woman and you can actually drive a car without getting arrested. Can't do that in medieval Saudi Arabia.

The only real reason the American nation tolerates this Saudi monarchy is because they have oil to offer. That's it. What they gonna do once all the oil runs out? Go back to camel herding? Exporting goats?

The very day they run out of oil, you can bet that the US Government will find every reason to sick some "regime change" offensive against Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, that won't happen for a few more decades.

That's nice. Care to elaborate? Please inform us all how that backwards country is so great.

----------

Hmmm I can't remember the last time I held a public execution for theft. I'm much better than that stone age country.

Click to expand...

They publicly beheaded almost as many "criminals" in 2014 as ISIS did. It's like a competition between Saudi and ISIS who can kill the most people by chopping their heads off. ISIS kinda won the count so far.

On the face of it, it seems absurd that any country could be ruled as an absolute monarchy in 2015. Or that it would allow public executions; canings; and not allow women to drive. And that doesn't begin to address the covert funding some Saudis provide to worldwide Islamic extremism.

On the other, it has been a rare example of stability in the region. It has been at peace with Israel since the Camp David accords; and has acted to keep the price of oil in range that doesn't bankrupt its European and US customers.

The best we can hope for is a gradual easing of some of the more repressive strictures of the regime. Its worth noting that the new King, like his half brother and the four previous Saudi Kings, was a son of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud - the founder (with the help of the British and US Governments) of the modern state of Saudi Arabia. It strikes me as unlikely that much in the way of serious reform is going to come at the hands of men in their 80s - so we may need to wait until a younger generation comes to power to see any serious change. Salman is almost 80; and has at least one stroke. (Some analysts believe he may be suffering from dementia or Alzheimers.) So don't be terribly surprised if King Salman's reign is neither long or fruitful.

Click to expand...

A balanced and thoughtful post.

Any death of a very powerful, wealthy (and largely unaccountable) King will inevitably give rise to a degree of unease in such a society, (even among the elite of the ruling Royal Family) even though the succession itself seems secure enough for now.

Nevertheless, I expect that the Kingdom will face further unsettling challenges over the coming years. As long as the succession is confined to the sons of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud - most of whom, as vrDrew has pointed out - are ageing, - the youngest of them was born in 1945 - passing from brother to half-brother the form and process of the succession shouldn't be a cause for instability.

However, once the succession (through natural causes) moves on a generation, while there is a possible potential for a more 'modern' minded monarchy, there is also a potential for extraordinary instability, as disputes may arise as to which of the sons of the following generation will be given precedence and acknowledged by the others as meriting that.

Likewise, anything that tries to present itself as modernity, or a more 'modernising' mindset, will always face a challenge in the homeland of so many of the sacred spaces of Islam, which serve both as cultural and theological bulwark (and source of political and theological authority) as well as a source of stupendous income and profit.

And then, there is oil, which is currently trading at around $46 dollars a barrel, surely something which may be a source of no small concern to a newly minted monarch of reigning over an oil rich Kingdom.

This doesn't even begin to address the challenges posed by radical Islamist movements, whether they be those funded and supported (covertly) by the Kingdom, or those it finds itself in dispute with (whether theological or political or some fusion of both).

Actually, Saudi Arabia offically rejects the Camp David accords. However, they have never fought a war with Israel, so who cares. No doubt they and Israel coordinate their manipulation of the United States vis-à-vis Iran.

That's nice. Care to elaborate? Please inform us all how that backwards country is so great.

Click to expand...

The death of King Abdullah is of little consequence. His brother has been the de facto king for a few months already. Nothing at all will change, hence there is no point in celebrating a random old royal guy's death.

The death of King Abdullah is of little consequence. His brother has been the de facto king for a few months already. Nothing at all will change, hence there is no point in celebrating a random old royal guy's death.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

Any change - no matter that the death of King Abdullah was long expected and widely anticipated - in an extremely conservative country, one wedded to traditions (indeed, one where the right to define these tradition is part of the sense of identity and statehood of the Kingdom), where the country serves the twin functions of custodian of the sacred spaces of Islam, along with the effects of the wealth conferred by oil, is bound to be somewhat unsettling to such a traditional country, no matter how smoothly managed.

Speaking of short trips, Obama cut his trip to India short so he could rush over to Saudi and kiss the new dictator's ring.

Click to expand...

The corrosive tone in which much discussion is carried on in these fora is deeply depressing to read.

Anyway, again, I beg to differ.

Traditional societies value expressions of respect, and in this instance, President Obama did the right thing. Offering formal condolences in no way equates to 'kissing the new dictator's ring'. Besides, I imagine that such a gathering of leaders will be a most useful place in which to network.

Moreover, given KSA's position as an oil producer and oil rich state, - among other matters - it was prudent and appropriate for President Obama to formally offer his condolences.

Really? India just spent millions prepping the Taj Mahal for Obama's visit. Couldn't he just send John Kerry or visit Saudi himself after the conclusion of his India visit?

No, Obama would rather bail on the world's largest democracy to personally offer condolences to the dictator of a nation that forbids women to drive, flogs bloggers, and beheads women for adultery.

Click to expand...

Obama was criticized for not going to paris after the attacks there. Perhaps he decided that it would not be good to be missing yet again when many other world leaders are there.

Also as Saudi Arabia is one of our few allies in the region it probably is wise not to try to offend them and threaten that relationship. I would imagine that given the age of the new king he will be dead in a few years, and then Obama or whomever is president at that time will drop what they are doing and go again.

Obama was criticized for not going to paris after the attacks there. Perhaps he decided that it would not be good to be missing yet again when many other world leaders are there.

Also as Saudi Arabia is one of our few allies in the region it probably is wise not to try to offend them and threaten that relationship. I would imagine that given the age of the new king he will be dead in a few years, and then Obama or whomever is president at that time will drop what they are doing and go again.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.